Comment by rck
Before you read this, it's worth your time to check out Haraway's Wikipedia page. The criticism section sums things up nicely:
Haraway's work has been criticized for being "methodologically vague" and using noticeably opaque language that is "sometimes concealing in an apparently deliberate way". Several reviewers have argued that her understanding of the scientific method is questionable, and that her explorations of epistemology at times leave her texts virtually meaning-free.
This manifesto is exactly the kind of nonsense that led Alan Sokal to send his fake paper to Social Text. Essays like this should come with a Surgeon General's warning: this writing may be amusing, but if you take it seriously it will rot your brain.
> at times leave her texts virtually meaning-free.
This statement makes no sense. What is the methodology these reviewers used such that they can determine how much meaning is in a text? And what is the difference between a text that is "virtually" meaning-free and 100% meaning-free with no modifier? What is the threshold for a text to have an epsilon of meaning? I'm sure those reviews came with p-values.
I might say that those reviewers' understanding of continental philosophy is questionable and at times leave their texts virtually meaning-free.